The Yale-Harvard Supreme Court: Us versus Them

Over the past few weeks, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has rendered several major decisions. These have either been applauded or vilified depending on which side of the political spectrum one is on. Personally, I could care less about the decisions, which from my perspective have less to do with legalities than compared to the tactics of divide and conquer as practiced by Oligarchs for centuries. But what is disturbing, is the sever lack of universal representation that currently, and in the past has comprised the jurist that sit on this nine person corpus.

Since 1956, at any given time, there have NEVER been less than three justices from Harvard and/or Yale sitting on the SCOTUS. And since the appointment of Anthony Kennedy in 1988, Harvard and Yale graduates in concert have comprised a majority of the court. When Elena Kagan was confirmed, it made all sitting on the SCOTUS had either attended Yale (Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor) or Harvard (John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer) for law schools. Can you say American aristocracy? 

I say this because in Washington of recent decades, it appears that the prevailing assumption as it pertains to the SCOTUS is that, the best minds and smartest people for the job graduate from either Yale or Harvard. Albeit a possibility of fanatical truism, in reality such never has, or will be the case. As such, unlike representative bodies like the Senate or the House of Representatives, the SCOTUS is not representative of AMERICA at all. Sure you got black and Latino persons, and some white men and white women, but that just doesn’t cut the cake and rather too simplistic in a diverse population inclusive of regional distinctions in thinking as ours.

This disproportionality in the number of justices from Harvard and Yale is frightening and should be to all. It is a form of legal aristocracy because there is none when it regards diversity of the legal educations of the folk who happen to be on the most important political body in our nation. I mean is it impossible to find a great and smart legal mind from the halls of Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, University of Virginia, William and Mary or the University of Tennessee? Nope, the Yaleharvarification of the SCOTUS aint about quality of the mind, but moreso of the Presidents whom appoint them and the legal field good ole boy network.

In simple terms, this is all about limited access networking. First, for the past 26 years every president has been a graduate of Yale or Harvard. This may be why among other things; all of the sitting members of the SCOTUS are either Catholic or Jewish. And it seems that all clerked on the Supreme Court once upon a time ago. If this constitutional republic is to function at full capacity and utility of its citizenry, diversity of education at the highest ranks of government, in particular the SCOTUS is paramount and a matter of survival.

When our elected officials, the folk who are responsible for making these sections and appointments to government positions we did not have a say of choosing and working on behalf of the citizenry, limit their pool to a small body, it works against the best interest of the nation. I mean, we saw what happened when African Americans and women were added, so why restrict the applicant pool in this instance?

The danger is that under the present results of this process, we get a narrower perspective on life because people in the restricted pool are reinforced to think the same and have more in common than different.

Imagine where our nation would be if we did this in all fields. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard, Fred Smith of Federal Express attended the University of Memphis for his MBA, Steve Jobs dropped out of Reed College and Warren Buffet went to University of Nebraska. I guess if you are starting a business or not looking for a job there are different requirements compared to obtaining a SCOTUS appointment. Could you imagine a field of Business dominated by just two schools? Oh that is right, you can, and well argue the observation in the affirmative since it were the Harvard and Yale Finance MBA’s that blew up and crashed Wall Street and the national and global economies.

Where would we be if science, technology and medicine operated in this manner? This would mean no University of Tennessee Medical Center or St. Jude Hospital in Memphis, no John Hopkins, Duke, Stanford, Cornell, Chicago, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, Cal Tech, MIT and Washington University in St. Louis.

The entire ideal of just two schools running the decision that will impact the entire nation is feculent. It is clear that other factors may be involved that may not even benefit the citizenry but rather the government and corporations since they are people now legally as a consequence of several recent court decisions. Most should be able to detect how many modern SCOTUS decisions benefit global plutocrats more than us, and in concert with the media and the criminal behavior of bankers and financiers; like the other two branches of our government, the SCOTUS seem to repeat a narrative of a future that George Orwell would have described as being manufactured to serve the interest of all and everything except justice, truth, virtue, and liberty. If my corollary is correct, this will not result in anything good for America.

mark of the beast

One of the benefits of being the President of the United States of America, if time is on your side is stacking the United States Supreme Court. Obama has made one move with a Latino woman but he may have the chance to put another one on giving John Paul Stevens, the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is 90 years of age. He joined the Supreme Court in 1975 and may not have that many years to live.

My concern is that I think Obama will put a man in office that scares the ish out of me - Cass Sunstein. Obama has been linked very closely to Sunstein since their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school and has appointed him to direct the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), His job is to mainly to put in place regulations to protect health, safety and the environment but history has shown us otherwise, but that is besides the point.

He is a major proponent of cost-benefit analysis as the basis for assessing regulations, even though mathematically it is not precise and can be easily manipulated to support what ever policy is retro chic. For example, it was he who used such an approach to develop his "senior discount" method for undervaluing the lives of seniors with respect to health care. He has even asked that popular or partisan websites to be FORCED to carry links to opposing viewpoints; something I will never do, could you imagine neo-Nazis and white supremist posing on my blog? Taking this farther, he even wants mandatory "electronic sidewalks" for cyberville. He would like a "notice and take down" law that would mandate bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even if they are made by commenter’s.

In a 2008 Harvard Law paper called "Conspiracy theories" Sunstein suggested that the government should ban conspiracy theorizing asserting to me that he does not desire for individuals to think independently or ask questions if it is against the body politic of who is in control of the government.

His position is that unrestrained individual choice if not controlled or regulated by the government is dangerous and must balanced in the interests of "citizenship" and "democracy." He stated that “a system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government. Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not to be rejected in freedom's name." Unlike the most of us, he see’s the internet as dangerous and that the Internet is destroying the ability for the masses to have shared social experiences.

He also is against using what is called the "precautionary principle" as a basis for regulating environmental which he would like to give the "benefit of the doubt," over possible health and safety concerns of the public. If you have read Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,"

He is concerned that in the future,” people’s beliefs” will be are a “product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire."
Sunstein suggest that the current libel standard - which requires proving "actual malice,” even if one blogger or news paper, that we should even be held responsible even for what people who comment on or blog say, this is true even for web service providers.

Cass Sunstein is a scary mother shut your mouth and I don’t believe that many folk even know or care are even up on folk, his writings, his papers, his belief or his policies. If you are not, then you need to be – he is the antithesis of liberty in word, belief and practice. Although he claims to be a progressive, he is more of a regressive to me. So take my advice and don’t be surprised if he is the folk Obama select to take the place of John Paul Stevens on the United States Supreme Court. And if does, there will be a real mark of the beast on America.